What liberties are those exactly? You would rather have no healthcare than healthcare for everyone?

The right to choose whether to have healthcare, what type to have, what doctors to go to, what medicine to take, what procedures are best for me.....
The bigger the government and the more it controls, the less liberties. That is axiomatic.

My main gripe is universal healthcare. I don't give two craps about making America entirely socialist, I'm just tired of people claiming socialism is
people getting free stuff when that's not what it is at all. I'm also tired of people saying capitalism is better when it's not.

Because I care about you, I care about everyone. I'm sorry if you don't care about me, but I still care about you. If I saw you bleeding on the side
of the street I would stop and help you, I would hope you'd do the same for me.

My main gripe is universal healthcare. I don't give two craps about making America entirely socialist, I'm just tired of people claiming socialism is
people getting free stuff when that's not what it is at all. I'm also tired of people saying capitalism is better when it's not.

I think it is not so much what socialism actually is, but what people in this country think it is. People know Bernie is a socialist and support him
because they think his ideological views mean we call get to drive Mercedes Benz, get free massages every week on our socialized healthcare with the
best doctors and the best procedures available, will all be Ph.D. educated and each given a sex slave of our choosing. Or, more realistically, that
you can forcefully take money from the top and distribute it down the pipe as the foundation of a utopian society with a glass ceiling. And that this
is the right path forward. I find it short-sighted and not a self-sustaining system. When the money drys up from the inevitable contraction of our
economy and the large scale inversions of corporations to foreign jurisdictions followed by the top 1%'s money, then there will be less for everyone
to share on this equal basis that everyone desires. Well equality of less means equality of being poor. That is best case scenario. Worst case
scenario corruption runs rampant and before we know it we spiral into asbolute totalitarianism.

You don't want to help me though, do you? If I can't afford insurance, I'm screwed. I may be able to walk into a hospital and get treatment but I'll
be carrying that debt with me for the rest of my life.

I have no issue with paying a few more dollars in taxes to help you get "free" treatment, you do though. No offense, but that's selfish in my eyes.

You don't want to help me though, do you? If I can't afford insurance, I'm screwed. I may be able to walk into a hospital and get treatment but I'll
be carrying that debt with me for the rest of my life.

I have no issue with paying a few more dollars in taxes to help you get "free" treatment, you do though. No offense, but that's selfish in my
eyes.

It is unfortunately more than a "few more dollars" and it will strangle the middle class into oblivion.

If it's done right it will be more than affordable. Insurance is already strangling the middle class as it is.

Universal Health Care would save the people of the United States about $600 billion for the same level of care they’re receiving. We found it would
require an additional $562 billion in taxation to cover the government spending, after savings and increases to demand.

You don't want to help me though, do you? If I can't afford insurance, I'm screwed. I may be able to walk into a hospital and get treatment but I'll
be carrying that debt with me for the rest of my life.

I have no issue with paying a few more dollars in taxes to help you get "free" treatment, you do though. No offense, but that's selfish in my
eyes.

Isn't the better plan to make sure people have more money, spend it as consumers, allow small business to thrive and grow, more people get hired, more
people thrive, your wages increase because demand on workers increases and your business needs to stay competitive, you get more money and can afford
health insurance or your business supplies it because it is a better job or because the market demands it for the business to stay competitive, etc.
You end up better off. You had to work for it, but you achieved what you were without. And the government didn't just hand it to you.

You don't want to help me though, do you? If I can't afford insurance, I'm screwed. I may be able to walk into a hospital and get treatment but I'll
be carrying that debt with me for the rest of my life.

I have no issue with paying a few more dollars in taxes to help you get "free" treatment, you do though. No offense, but that's selfish in my
eyes.

Just because I don't embrace socialism, it means I'm a bastard? You don't know me, you don't know where I work or what I do.

You'd be surprised at what I give and do to help. But this is the internet so anything said is suspect.

If you can't afford insurance, blame the socialist Obama. If you ask for help you'll probably get it.

But I'll be damned if I'll help anyone if I'm mandated by the government to help.

I didn't call you a bastard did I? I just said you're being selfish. But it's your right to be that way I guess.

That's like saying you'll be damned to obey the speed limit because the government mandates it. You're being defiant, that's all it is. You don't like
the government so you oppose it, everyone who would benefit be damned.

Again, you're being selfish in my opinion. Universal healthcare would end up saving you money, yet your argument is that you don't want to give your
money away. You're saving money, not giving it away.

You keep saying that the government would just hand us free healthcare. What do you think taxes are? People working to pay into the healthcare.
There's nothing handed to you, you work for it.

How about we do both of those? Why does it have to be one or the other?

As my edit says, universal healthcare would save the American people about $600 billion if done the right way. How would saving the middle class money
be strangling them?

Under the current regime. Nothing says another solution would not create even better results. That doesn't tell you about the people being fined who
do not have insurance, etc. And the impact on small businesses and other businesses who cut employees or take on costs from Obamacare, etc. The
taxes you pay for healthcare would take away from the money you can spend on other things to help grow the economy. See France. Great healthcare,
economy in crisis mode.

That's like saying you'll be damned to obey the speed limit because the government mandates it. You're being defiant, that's all it is. You don't like
the government so you oppose it, everyone who would benefit be damned.

Again, you're being selfish in my opinion. Universal healthcare would end up saving you money, yet your argument is that you don't want to give your
money away. You're saving money, not giving it away.

To be fair, policing and laws are a different animal than entitlements.

That's like saying you'll be damned to obey the speed limit because the government mandates it. You're being defiant, that's all it is. You
don't like the government so you oppose it, everyone who would benefit be damned.

Bull#, the speed limit affects everyone on the road.

Again, you're being selfish in my opinion. Universal healthcare would end up saving you money, yet your argument is that you don't want to give
your money away. You're saving money, not giving it away.

You are lying because you have no clue to the costs associated with healthcare.

Under your socialized healthcare, would doctors and medical staff be paid what they are being paid now?

This sort of just gets at my point of short-sightedness. All these socialist ideologies sound great in isolation and a bubble. No one is taking the
time to consider the broader micro and macro consequences of those types of approaches. And no one is considering what alternatives there are and
comparatively analyzing whether there is a better way than the bubble wrapped bull# being spouted to us by politicians. Yes, of course it sounds
great for everyone to have healthcare. No one disagrees with that. What is less clear is what exactly everyone having healthcare means (is it any
good, do you get to choose your doctor, is there rations on medicines when supply runs low, how long does it take to get to see a doctors- once a
year, more, less, etc.). I can say everyone should have food and give them each a piece of bread a week. That doesn't solve the problem of
starvation but everyone has food. In a similar vain, everyone having healthcare does not necessarily equate to the form of healthcare you may
imagine. Just saying.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.